I am a longtime advocate of reparations for African Americans. However, I think the current push for reparations may be problematic.
As a participant in the movement, I was once privileged to accompany reparations leader Audley Moore (better known as Queen Mother Moore) to a meeting in a Manhattan hotel with two leaders of the Republic of New Africa (RNA), a recently formed group that was pushing reparations and even separation–asking that blacks be given several southern states in an argument similar to that of the Nation of Islam. Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X’s widow, was one of the officers in RNA.
The thrust of the reparations movement this year is to push candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination to get on board with reparations. On its face, this should be a good thing as it provides more attention to the idea than we have had since Reconstruction.
The idea of reparations has been around since the end of slavery. After emancipation, General William T. Sherman ordered that a half-million acres of land in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida be given to former slaves in 40-acre lots with mules, horses, and other provisions.
In Congress, a bill in 1867 by Rep. Thaddeus Stevens and Sen. Charles Sumner set aside 3 million acres of land to be assigned to the former slaves in 40-acre parcels. The bill passed in Congress, but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, who also canceled Gen. Sherman’s field order. Thus, the promise of 40 acres and a mule went unfulfilled and has remained so. If for no other reason reparations should be pursued.
The Democratic presidential candidates are taking the safe route by pledging support for the House reparations bill which would form a commission to study whether African Africans should receive reparations for slavery, not a significant commitment at this point.
The emphasis seems to be on reparations for slavery. As such, the current political approach might be feasible. However, slavery should not be the only reparations issue.
There is another period which calls for reparations: it is the 100 years of racial apartheid in America between the end of slavery in 1865 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. We should not omit this period, nor should we group it with the slavery reparations argument.
The case for reparations for racial apartheid might be stronger than the legitimate case against slavery. Therefore it should be separated from the reparations-for-slavery argument.
I agree with the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on at least one thing. Slavery in the United States was the worst in known history. It was brutal and savage, although supported by the U.S. Constitution. The 100 years of racial apartheid was also brutal, but constitutionally illegal, according to the 1954 Brown v. Board ruling. Furthermore, we can readily demonstrate harm to individuals and families during the racial apartheid or Jim Crow period.
Another problematic issue is the rush to discuss remedies, which is a major trap. As Einstein tried to teach us and as the scientific method clearly states, the first step in solving a problem is to define it. While there is substantial—but not overwhelming—agreement on the details of slavery, there is no such commonly accepted understanding on the details of the harm done to African Americans during the period of racial apartheid. One of the best things that could happen in America is to have—for the first time—a debate over why reparations are warranted, especially for the 100 years after the end of slavery.
